Re: Theos-World RE: Proof of Adepts† † † Value of Theosophy
Oct 02, 2005 04:09 PM
In a message dated 10/2/05 5:44:33 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> 10/2/2005 12:48 PM
> ¬† ¬† RE: Proof of Adepts¬† ¬† ¬† Value of Theosophy
> Dear Gerry:
> While this may sound extreme¬† (as claim or statement), yet it carries the
> sense in which I write of the value of THEOSOPHY. And of the reason for
> respect of the MASTERS OF WISDOM.
> You may have noted how in the MAHATMA LETTERS [ pp.¬† 33, 43 (Barker Edn.)] ,
> the great respect they offer to the Buddha, calling Him their Patron.
> Hence the value of making strictly available to all students, new or old of
> the "ORIGINAL TEACHINGS."¬†
> I have mop objections to comments being made on those teachings IF SO
> LABELED. [ I mean advising clearly IN ADVANCE that editorial changes have
> been introduced, and where and why so done.]
> I object when I discover that changes have been introduced in so-called
> reproductions of the "original¬† Teachings."¬† The first of such
> NON-ADVERTISED changes, was the reprint, in 1893 of the SECRET DOCTRINE.
> Both Adyar and Pasadena THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY s have done this in the past,
> and both have eventually returned to printing the ORIGINAL again.
> Here is another reason:
> ‚ÄúWISDOM RELIGION. ¬† ¬† The one religion which underlies all the
> now-existing creeds.
> That ‚Äúfaith‚ÄĚ which, being primordial, and revealed directly to human kind b
> their progenitors and informing EGOS (though the Church regards them as the
> ‚Äúfallen angels‚ÄĚ), required no ‚Äúgrace‚ÄĚ, nor blind faith to believe, for it
> was knowledge. (See ‚ÄúGupta Vidy√Ę‚ÄĚ, Hidden Knowledge.)
> It is on this Wisdom Religion that Theosophy is based.‚ÄĚ
> ¬† ¬†¬† T¬† Glos¬† 371-2
> This does not preclude the WISDOM of Buddhism, Hinduism, Brahmanism, etc.,
> which all can be traced back to the ORIGINAL Wisdom Religion -- the SANATANA
> DHAMMO¬† (DHARMA) of antiquity.
> Our modern exposition by HPB of the Masters' Message is a continuation of
> the same ancient teachings.
> Comparison produces and assures us of such verification.
> Best wishes,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald Schueler [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 12:59 PM
> To: Theosophy Study List
> Subject: Proof of Adepts
> ZD¬† ¬† ¬†¬† The existence of Adepts can not be proven unless an Adept desires
> it to be so. Since Theosophists can not prove and demonstate such as actual
> FACT, does it mean it is not to be respected?¬†
> DTB: Many other examples of that in which can not be demonstated as actual
> FACT can be presented. I would appreciate an expounding of what is meant by
> the above statement.¬†
> An Adept is one who realizes the I-Not-I Monad and that the entire universe
> is an expression of this monad. Such a one can consciously make changes in
> his own Not-I or world. But so long as we are embodied, we share our worlds
> with others, and so making changes in one world always has karmic effects
> in the monadic world's of others who share it. Each Adept has a choice.
> They can deliberately avoid making any significant changes and let karmic
> forces run themselves out, as Ramakrishna did at the end of the 18th
> century, or they can make changes and thus reveal themselves to others, as
> many do. Those who remain in the background, making no significant changes,
> often go through life unknown and unnoticed. Those who choose to make
> changes and reveal themselves to others must pay the karmic price for doing
> so, as HPB's Adepts, and many others, have done.
> DTB¬† ¬†¬† I see as methods of proof:¬†
> ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† (1)¬† testimony¬† [ found in numerous accounts of personal witnesses ]
> ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† (2)¬† coherence of information offered to be considered ‚Äď in content,
> logic, support from other reliable sources.
> ¬† ¬† ¬†¬† (3)¬† lack of any enforcement, or any promises of securing personal
> preference or powers.
> Eye-witness testimony is usually unreliable, but sometimes it is all we
> have. Information, exoteric knowledge such as the original writings, does
> not validate Adepts, and could have been written by a non-Adept who was
> highly intelligent and had access to libraries. The information contained
> in the original writings is about as consistent as the Bible or Koran. In
> short, there are conflicts when we make literal interpretations. Failure to
> promise rewards is itself no guarantee of Adepts. If these three methods of
> "proof" were valid, then everyone today would believe in Adepts. Adepts
> generally are not¬† interested in proving themselves to non-believers. They
> do, however, have an interest in helping those who are ready to see them
> for what they are.
> Personally, I believe in them because because I can see no reasonable
> alternative in light of my experiences.
> Jerry S.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application